I think I’m on to something here (of course I do; why else would I be writing this?)…

A. There have been smatterings of dissatisfaction with the recently concluded NECC, particularly among the more experienced and “followed” edubloggers (see e.g. Will and Karl)

B. Great discussions about systemic educational change have been occurring in the edublogosphere, especially over at Chris Lehmann’s blog and Will Richardson’s blog.

I think part of the reason for A is a desire for what’s being discussed in B.

I say that because NECC (the subject of A) is ALL about the micro.; it’s about pedagogy, classroom tools, projects, etc.    The subject of B is macro; it’s about changing the “system.”

So, here’s my proposal.  Let NECC (and ISTE) be what it is; a place to learn about technology integration; a VERY important place for LOTS of educators.  CoSN’s annual conference, on the other hand, is the place where learning and conversations about policy, leadership, change can happen.  Apparently, CoSN doesn’t think professors (or higher ed. more generally) are worthy of attending their shindig, but I’m likely to crash their party next year (besides, I’ve been dying to go to Austin, TX anyway!).

Tags: COSN, education, NECC, policy, technology

Scott McLeod deemed today Leadership Day, and so it is!  And so I go…

If you haven’t watched the video of Chris Lehmann’s presentation at NECC, there’s no question that it’s a must see.  I’m sure I’ll have lots of occasions to use it as a pedagogical tool with my ed. leadership students, especially as a model of instructional leadership.  The reviews of Chris’ preso have been through-the-roof high, and deservedly so.  Will Richardson used Twitter to suggest that we need to clone Chris, and Bud Hunt (aka Bud the Teacher) replied that he had secretly taken a few of Chris’ hairs for exactly that purpose.

For those who don’t know, Chris is the principal of the Science Leadership Academy; a magnet high school in Philadelphia that he founded/started a few years ago.  Because he is extraordinarily transparent (want to visit SLA; just ask!) and collaborative, and for at least one other reason I shouldn’t disclose, I’ve learned quite a bit about Chris and SLA.  And, as best I can tell, we really do need to clone Chris; we can’t have enough principals like him.

THAT ALL SAID, here’s the question…what would happen if we suddenly made Chris the principal of Frederick Douglass High School (NOTE: the school doesn’t even have it’s own website) in Baltimore (the subject of a recent HBO documentary which has been written about by me and others)?

You see, Chris admittedly had the luxury of starting a brand new school according to his (and presumably others’) incredible vision.  He got to self-select a whole faculty.  The school’s magnet status means that the students that attend, at some level, want to be there.  in fact, according to the school’s website,  “[a]dmission to SLA is based on a combination of a student interview at the school with a presentation of completed work, strong TerraNova scores, As and Bs with the possible exception of one C, teacher or counselor recommendation and good attendance and punctuality.” I know many, many principals who would drop everything to be able to select an entire faculty and work with already accomplished students.

But, there’s another thing that separates Chris from the vast majority of his principal peers.  Chris is an unrelenting progressivist and he has a true global, future-oriented vision.  Just read his recent blog post about progressive pedagogy for 21st century schools.

I know that not all schools like Douglass High are destined to fail.  I’ve seen and read parts of this book.  And, I know about the Achievement Alliance’s efforts to document success stories.  But, even there, if you read about the high school they spotlight, the school is unique in its geography and the “success” is having gone from 26% proficiency in one subject (ELA) to 42% proficiency over the course of 6 years.  That’s steady, but slow, improvement; but 42% is not exactly superior.

I’ve also followed closely the research and documentation of the 90/90/90 schools (90% low income, 90% minority, 90% proficiency).  Just about everything I’ve read about those schools (including this by Douglas Reeves) points to a blinding focus on standards, assessment, data-driven decision-making, etc.  For better or worse, there’s NOTHING progressive about those schools.

So, I wonder what would happen if we put Chris Lehmann in the hardest-to-staff schools; schools consistently failing to make adequate yearly progress.  I guess the question I’m asking is: Who wins?  The extraordinary progressive leader or the system?  Can a brilliant, extraordinary leader WITH A PROGRESSIVIST BENT truly reform a severely struggling school within the existing system of public education?

Personally, I think Chris, or someone like Chris, would do wonders in a school like Douglass High.  But, unfortunately, I think that remains an open (empirical?) question.  And, I’d love for us to be able to do that empirical work.  I would love to document the experiences of bright, extraordinary, progressive leaders who have proven successful in more comfortable situations attempting to completely turn around a failing school.  Please note, my interest is not how “good” someone like Chris is.  I want to know what effect “the system” has on someone as “good” and particularly as progressive as Chris.  If you know of any such experiences, let me know.

Tags: education, equity, leadership, leadershipday2008, progressivism, schooltechleadership

Just sat through most of the “discussion” on filtering policies.  Good/interesting discussion.  My take:

• “Policies” vary across districts.  Some have very stringent AUPs that go well beyond CIPA (for example).  One participant spoke about a “mature” AUP that trusts kids and teachers to do the right thing.  They treat “bad” sites like bad books or posters.  Those are individual situations to be dealt with when they happen.
• Lots of frustration.  Many LEPs block social networking sites because they are “open.”  From a leadership standpoint, that’s an understandable approach even if it’s not the most pedagogically sound.
• Conversations need to happen between leaders, teachers, community, etc.  I believe everyone can get along as long as the dialogue is ongoing and educators are treated like professionals.  There ARE ways to keep kids away from “bad” stuff and to also allow teachers to work with the kids to get where they need to go.

Good start to NECC and EBC.

Tags: ebc08, filtering, necc08

Last night, I watched and recorded the HBO documentary, Hard Times at Douglass High: A No Child Left Behind Report Card.  Hard Times is essentially a “year-in-the-life” cinema verite type film that “documents” the inner workings of one high school in Baltimore, MD that serves only African-American students (as a result of de facto segregation).  I’m recommending the documentary, with lots of caveats.  My greatest concern is that the film will feed streotypes about urban high schools.  My greatest hope is that people will watch the film and wake up to the reality that schooling, particularly in urban areas, is a difficult and complex institution that does not work for too many young people.

Though I’ve never taught in an urban high school, my research projects have allowed me to spend a LOT of time in various urban schools all across the country.  I’ve also taken courses on urban education, read all of the classic books about urban education, etc.  So, nothing in the film surprised me and I learned nothing new.  So, I’m guessing the film was not made for people like me.

However, for those who’ve only “heard about” schools like Douglass High (even writing “schools like…” is value laden and probably not my best choice of words), I imagine the film is pretty startling.  There’s a real sense of hopelessness, indifference and/or resignation that permeates the film.  There are a couple of nice stories about a few of the students, but mostly the statistics cited throughout the film are terrifyingly bad and the negative stories certainly outweigh the bad.  The images of students sleeping through the administration of the state tests are disturbing.  The “so be it” attitude of some of the teachers is really upsetting.  This is not a film to watch if you’re looking for a pick-me-up.

My own takes?  As a professor of educational leadership, I was wholly unimpressed by the principal.  She seemed kind and well-meaning, but she was not at all inspiring or personable.  I believe that school would be better served by someone with tons of energy, ideas and enthusiasm.  Also, I don’t understand the use of NCLB in the subtitle of the film.  Other than the frequent citing of statistics about outcomes, the film is NOT about NCLB; it’s simply an ethnographic look at one urban high school.

Having watched the film in the week leading up to NECC, I’m left conflicted.  On one hand, it feels like going to a conference with a massive exhibit hall loaded with glitzy, expensive products sold by many lucrative companies is so wrong-headed. How can interactive white boards and Google Earth, for example, help the kids in Douglass High, many of whom worry about where they will get their next meal?  Or, how can I concern myself with “big ideas” about the future of schooling and tech.-driven learning theories when there are so many schools like Douglass High where the status quo is simply unacceptable?  On the other hand, I wonder if discussing and thinking about “big ideas” like Classroom 2.0 or School 2.0 might help me think about ways to blow up the status quo.  I mean, what if “the best and brightest” thinkers at NECC were to be given the power to convert Douglass High into School 2.0?

A while back, David Jakes laid down a gauntlet to edubloggers and asked if we were ready to “earn it - really earn it” at NECC.  Well, I challenge those same folks to “step up” and figure out how the issues and ideas discussed at NECC (especially NECC Unplugged and Edubloggercon) can be used to serve those most in need of school reform.

Tags: necc2008, reform, urban education

A couple of weeks ago, Cathy Nelson tagged me for this. I was honored and eager to do this; I think this is a great opportunity for both self-reflection and to put my cards on the table for my readers to get to know me a bit more.

I’m going to take a slightly different approach than Cathy. Specifically, I’m going to “borrow” from Peter King, one of my favorite sportswriters. In his weekly Monday Morning Quarterback column on CNN/SI, King always includes a segment called “10 Things I Think I Think.” So, without further ado, here are 10 things I think I think about education:

1.  I think the thinkers/writers who’ve most influenced my thinking are Kieran Egan, Roger Schank and, well, I’d have to say John Dewey. I challenge you to read the following narratives by those three men, synthesize them in your head and tell me what you come up with (and, yes, I know that Egan is critical of Dewey, but that’s fine by me): Egan article; Schank & Jona white paper; Dewey book chapter

2.  I think the best book on education I’ve read to this point continues to be Schoolteacher by Dan Lortie. Over three decades later, Lortie’s work stands out as THE definitive exploration (methodologically and substantively) of the “ethos of teaching.” If you haven’t read this book, please add it to your summer reading list.

3.  I think we too often use the terms “education” and “schooling” interchangeably. They are too very different things. I think of schooling as a subset of the larger idea of education. This is not at all a novel idea, but I do think we need to continually remind ourselves of it.

4.  I think if you read or hear someone saying that there is a “program” or “initiative” or “reform” that significantly improves student achievement for a large group of students (lets say, for arguments sake, greater than 384), especially in a short period of time, they are lying (or, at least, terribly misleading you). There are lots of ideas/programs/curricula/etc. out there designed by really smart, well-intentioned people. But, I promise you, none of them will dramatically and suddenly alter the achievement growth trajectory for any large group of students. None.

5.  I think, having just written that, the bodies of research that are most compelling with respect to improving student outcomes (notice I didn’t write “achievement”) are about small class sizes, quality early childhood education, and year-round learning. In other words, if you told any educator that next year they were going to have a much smaller class, with kids who had high quality early childhood educational experiences, and who have had learning opportunities during the summer months, they’d be thrilled. If we’re going to continue the institution of public schooling, we ought to think about improving early childhood educational opportunities for all kids, moving away from the agrarian-based educational schedule, and reducing class sizes (I might even be so bold as to suggest we break down classroom walls altogether; how open education of me). Notice I’ve written nothing here about technology?…that body of research is neither robust nor consistent enough yet. )-:

6.  I think emphasizing evidence-based practice in education is a good idea. I think embracing a very narrow view of what counts as a warranted knowledge claim (i.e. what counts as evidence) is absurd.

7.  I think whereas there has necessarily been great attention given to issues of between-schools segregation by race in the U.S., there is a huge, insidious problem of within-schools segregation in far too many schools in the U.S. For those of you that work in or know of schools with a reasonable semblance of racial diversity (yes, both of you), take a look at your school population and then the populations of the kids in: special education, gifted and talented programs, advanced placement courses, the APs office for disciplinary referrals, etc. Do those populations have the same racial compositions? I thought not.

8.  I think we need more principals like Chris Lehmann and Tim Lauer. I kept that list short, for lots of reasons.

9.  I think “Leadership Without Followers” by Chris Dede continues to be relevant and the framework for all that I believe about educational leadership.

10.  I think all kids can learn…I’m just not sure they can do it well enough within the confines of 99.99% of the schools in the United States.

There, I said it…or at least wrote it.

Unlike some, I kinda like this meme concept; I think it’s a decent way to encourage folks to write on a particular topic. So, in that light, I’m tagging the following bloggers:

• Justin Bathon
• Paul Bogush
• Ric Murry
• Kate Olson
• John Hendron

Have at it, folks.

Tags: blogging, education, meme, reflection